But last, Harry takes up the theme and treats it in a
spirit becoming the gravity of the subject.
He thinks that the artist formed the figure according to a pattern,
having a cold "corpse" conveniently by as a model, from which he
could take "careful measurement," and proceeded to make this
figure, not attempting, he says, to make this corpse look like a
"living figure," which certainly was modest in the artist. He also
says that he did not attempt to "supply the missing hair." The
question very naturally arises here, "Why was the hair missing,
and how long had the corpse been a corpse to lose its hair? and
was it a pleasant occupation to do business with such a corpse?"
This omission (i.e. to put on hair), Harry says, arose from
"inexperience."
Now, experience is certainly an excellent thing, and when properly
acquired and wisely used is undoubtedly of considerable benefit
to mankind. But that it was necessary, in order to enable an
artist to know that hair grows on the human head, we had not
before supposed. Into such absurdities, oh Harry, does he run
who abandons his familiar scissors for the unaccustomed pen.
I will briefly refer to the letter of Rev. S.R. Calthrop in favor
of the statue theory. While it shows the scholarship of its author,
his thorough appreciation of artistic influences, and the wonderful
imitation of nature produced by the one who formed this figure, it
does not seem to me to go very far towards proving his position.
Pages:
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51